Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 143930; Unpublished
Judges Marilyn Kelly, MacKenzie, and Neff; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Liability Policy Exclusions for Owned and Non-Owned Vehicles [§3131]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Private Contract (Meaning and Intent)
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam unpublished Opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's interpretation of a "non-owned" vehicle provision in the insurance policy and held that the trial court erroneously granted summary disposition to the plaintiffs, thereby allowing plaintiffs to "stack" coverage on the vehicle involved in the accident together with coverage on another vehicle owned by a relative in the same household.
In this case, Leon Dysinger was driving his car when it collided with plaintiffs car. At the time of the accident, Leon Dysinger lived with his mother, Thelma Dysinger. The plaintiffs claimed injuries beyond Mr. Dysinger's insurance policy limits, and sought additional coverage under a separate insurance policy defendant had issued to Mrs. Dysinger. The issue in this case concerned interpretation of the provision of Thelma Dysinger's policy which provides coverage for "non-owned cars," together with an exclusion which prohibits coverage if the vehicle is owned by or registered or leased in the name of any relative or other person residing in the same household.
The language of the non-owned car coverage provision sets forth a four part definition of "non-owned car" as a car not owned by or registered or leased in the name of:
1. You, your spouse;
2. Any relative unless at the time of the accident or loss:
a. The car is or has been described on the declarations page of a liability policy within the preceding 30 days; and
b. You, your spouse or a relative who does not own or lease such a car is the driver.
3. Any other person residing in the same household, as you, your spouse or any relative; or
4. An employer of you, your spouse or any relative.
Plaintiffs contended that since Mr. Dysinger's automobile met subpart (1) of the definition (i.e., it was a car not owned or registered by Thelma Dysinger), that was sufficient to satisfy the definition of a non-owned car and thereby provide coverage. According to plaintiffs, it is irrelevant that the vehicle may not be a non-owned car under any other subparagraph of the definition of non-owned vehicle.
The Court of Appeals held that the language of this coverage provision, however in artfully worded or clumsily arranged, admits of only one interpretation, that Mr. Dysinger's car was not a non-owned vehicle. Mr. Dysinger owned the car and was a relative of the insured and a resident of the same household. The Court of Appeals held that its conclusion was further strengthened by a reading of the entire contract which contains an explicit exclusionary clause prohibiting coverage if the vehicle is owned by or registered or leased in the name of any relative or other person residing in the same household.
